NotACube

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

The article states that 70% of those occupying social housing have their rent payed for by housing benefit. The article also mentions that housing benefit comes from central government.

So the effect of this is a transfer of more money from central government to councils and housing associations. As well as an increase in the incomes of councils and HAs from those 30% that are well-off enough to no longer receive housing benefit but are still living in social housing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd say this is less about reducing CO2 and more about making cities and towns nicer places to live and helping people live healthier lives.

I have no idea what the stats on this are, but I'd guess that the amount of emissions saved in people cycling more vs using a petrol car or electric car wouldn't actually be much compared to measures that reduce emissions from goods transport.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

TBH I thought the article was actually particularly good because it specifically pointed out that "immigration" isn't one homogeneous thing.

We end up with these worst-of-all worlds outcomes because we talk about immigration as if it’s one thing when in reality it is many very different things, because we refuse to confront trade-offs — and because each side has its own conversational no-go areas.

I think that point of refusing to discuss tradeoffs is also particularly pertinent. Significant chunks of the electorate will happily vote for Reform but then moan about the lack of staffing in healthcare. Or conversely, others will happily quote the stats that on average migrants are a net benefit to the country, but then refuse to investigate this thought further and realise that this is an average and those benefits may not be spread evenly (perhaps some areas are even negatively affected).

 

Unpaywalled archive link: https://archive.is/jlyiS

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Wouldn't this be pretty bang-on expected for less premium groceries where profit margins are much thinner?

For example, a food product retailing at £2 where £1.80 covers farming costs and operational costs, inflation of 10% will increase those costs to £1.98, to keep a 20p profit, the retailer would increase the price to £2.18 (9% increase). A more premium food product that retails for £3.50 where the farming costs are only slightly higher might have a £2 cost for the retailer with a much higher markup of £1.50. To keep that same profit after 10% cost inflation (to £2.20), the price would rise to £3.70 (5.7% increase).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Bill Stickers is innocent!

 

Unwalled archive link: https://archive.is/dd0K6

 

Unwalled archive link: https://archive.is/OP9ny

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago

Macquarie - famous for fucking over Thames Water by creating a deliberately complex company structure so they could load it up with debt in order to pay out dividends.

 

Unwalled archive link: https://archive.is/w8qYz

 

Unwalled archive link: https://archive.is/0hDcx

 

Full text archive link: https://archive.is/lhS3k

Some further thoughts from the FT politics newsletter:

Labour has an ambitious target to increase the UK’s employment rate to 80 per cent — for context, the OECD average is 70 per cent, and the UK is currently at 75 per cent. If it could achieve this, the UK would be part of a small group of countries: Iceland, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the only OECD countries with employment rates above 80 per cent

However, while the UK’s employment rate looks good next to its peers, it is also the only G7 country that has an employment rate lower than it was before the Covid-19 pandemic. So while it is an ambitious target, a) it is not an impossible one and b) the UK could almost certainly get closer to 80 per cent than it is now.

One lever that Labour wants to pull to turn that around is to reform what jobcentres do — Delphine Strauss’s story is here — getting them to focus more on providing career advice than policing the benefits system.

When government departments and agencies work well, they are obsessed with improving performance. When they are working badly, they are obsessed with improving performance indicators. When this happens in education it leads to grade inflation, because it is always in the interest of the government of the day to be able to point to better grades. (Some more thoughts on that here.)

Jobcentres have essentially always been the part of the government that is most geared towards producing improved performance indicators rather than improved performance. While it matters a great deal to the UK’s economic performance whether someone who comes into contact with a jobcentre leaves with a better job than the one they had lost or with a new qualification, in political debates all that really matters is whether or not you can say that the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has fallen.

One way Labour is trying to change that is, for the first time since the Thatcher government, by having two different ministers in charge of employment (Alison McGovern) and social security (Stephen Timms, who having been a very effective select committee chair and a former minister in the last Labour government, is perhaps the most Keir Starmer-y appointment it is possible to make) at the DWP.

But it’s a big, big, big cultural change the party is looking to bring about in jobcentres, and doing so is a big part of how it is going to try and meet what is its most ambitious target when it comes to social policy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Saw the first clip in the video and couldn't handle watching any more. I'm all for allowing people the autonomy to take their own sensible risks and avoid over safety-fying things, but some people are ridiculous (and selfish in this context). If you're going to go over a level crossing when the barriers are closed, at least have the respect to run across, knowing that you're doing something risky, rather than casually stroll through the danger zone!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

No luck catching them rate cuts then, BoE?

 

Full text archive link: https://archive.is/qKMCn

 

Source: RedfieldWilton@twitter

Labour are more trusted than the Conservatives on EVERY policy issue prompted.

Which party do voters trust most on...?

(Lab | Con)

NHS (42% | 17%) Education (39% | 20%) Economy (38% | 23%) Immigration (33% | 21%) 🇺🇦 (31% | 24%)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Very much agree with all these points. I also don't think it's that useful to be spamming this community with polls as they come out. But thought this was a helpful bit of information to see where things roughly stand at the beginning of campaign time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

* tory moment *

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Weirdest set of things in the prize task for quite a while, I loved it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

I think their origial plan was to try and ensure that Daniel Korski, the CCHQ preferred candidate, would get selected by putting him up against insane choices like Susan Hall. Unfortunately Korski had to exit because of sexual assault allegations (name a more iconic duo than Tory politicians and criminal sleaze) leaving only the insane candidates.

This sort of situation has become a bit of a classic Tory tale with the amount of times similar things have happened since 2019.

view more: next ›